Talk:The Holocaust

GA/FA status

I think it's about time that we try once again to bring this article up to Good/Featured article status, because the significance of it is quite huge, in terms of the impact, and the aftermath of The Holocaust. --EclipseSSD (talk) 19:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Victims and death toll

The edits I made in the past day were made to give support to the figure of 9-11 million Holocaust deaths which are listed in the introduction. The source for the figures is Niewyck's Columbia Guide to the Holocaust. My goal is to improve the article and give it credibility. Previously the article listed 9-11 million deaths with no clear explanation as to it's breakdown. The source to back up the figures is Donald Niewyck, a recognized scholar of the Holocaust. The Columbia Guide to the Holocaust was published by Columbia University. I believe that the article has been improved. I would like to hear the opinions of other editors on my changes to the article.--Woogie10w (talk) 11:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I knew that the jewish death toll was undescribably high,6.8 million.But I never realised that other types of peoples were affected also, the homosexuals,s0w-prisoners.When I looked at the given photos of the people being murdered, a child dying and people just walking by, emaciated bodies and sickly babies.I was disgusted at the sick mindedness of the thinkers of "The Final Solution".Constituting I have my own history of attrocities in my country, South Africa.Though I was not remotely on the existance list.Apartheid in my country left millions of casulties and traumatised generations.The worst I think is :that Hitler could talk a whole country as well as educated people into believing his sick ideal.And now the affected families and cultures have to live with the reminiscent sting of their past generations endurance of these attrocities.

All we can do is know all are equal individuals which have the divine right to existance and life.Nothing gives anyone the right to ever corrupt lives or constrict freedom. Nothing!God made us all and that makes us special!

If the Auschwitz number of dead was 4 million then it was changed to 1.1 million why has that not changed the total number of dead?--Rothschild&co (talk) 23:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• Because no responsible scholars ever paid attention to the 4 million claim; it was recognized as inflated. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Now the number is 9 to 11 million total? Were did that number come from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rothschild&co (talk • contribs) 21:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC) Read the article, pal--Woogie10w (talk) 11:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The origin of the 4.0 million murdered persons, Jews and Christians, at Oświęcim is a statement by Soviet sources in 1945, this preliminary estimate was repeated in western historical literature for many years. Today scholars in Poland believe that between 2.5 and 3.0 million Jews were murdered in Poland during the war, including 1.0 million Jews at Oświęcim. Since the fall of communism in 1989 historians in Poland have been able to publish research free from government censorship. An analysis of this recent research in Poland can be found in this source. Gniazdowski, Mateusz. Losses Inflicted on Poland by Germany during World War II. Assessments and Estimates—an Outline The Polish Quarterly of International Affairs, 2007, no. 1.This article is available for purchase from the Central and Eastern European Online Library at [1]--Woogie10w (talk) 11:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems like there is manipulation going on in this article, I think every major news agency still use 6 million. Now how or why your inflating the number is still not clear. But it is clear that 6 million is the accepted number in main stream media and I think that should be respected.--Rothschild&co (talk) 22:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Hm? The "main stream media" isn't what determines inclusion in Wikipedia; rather, we insist on reliable sources, and favor scholarly sources, which is a different matter entirely. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

To be a revisionist which is what your doing by flying in the face of known accepted information, you need extraordinary evidence. Going from 6 million to 11 million is a very big jump. Now I have yet to see the extraordinary evidence which overrides all known and accepted information about the official number. Do you have the overriding information which allows you to support you revisionist claims?--Rothschild&co (talk) 23:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Who are you talking to? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
• I believe I was responding to your last statement, sorry if I didn't make that clear, but I would like to have a response on my previous statement I made.--Rothschild&co (talk) 00:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you'd be pretty hard pressed to find one reliable, third party source that does not list the total death toll for all Nazi death operations during WW2 as ~11 million. The confusion often arises from the fact that the term "Holocaust" can be used to describe either solely the Nazi campaign against Jews or the wider ethnic cleansing programme. The article has to explain all uses of the word, not merely the use that is most common in the press. The Jewish death toll is generally put at around 6 million, while the non-Jew death toll is put at around 5 million, giving a total of around 11 million, higher or lower depending upon the estimate. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 02:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The wider ethnic cleansing programme encompassed the USSR. According to a Russian Academy of Science Report of 1995 the civilian death toll in the USSR territory occupied by the Germans was 13.7 million, out of the total population of 68 million ( 20.1%). Western scholars need to become aware of the research in post communist Russia on the human losses during the war. For example in the battle of Stalingard the USSR lost 323,856 men. The civilian toll in the Stalingard region was 555,700.--Woogie10w (talk) 23:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Source of the statictics mentioned above, Rossiiskaia Akademiia nauk. Liudskie poteri SSSR v period vtoroi mirovoi voiny:sbornik statei. Sankt-Peterburg 1995 ISBN 5-86789-023-6--Woogie10w (talk) 23:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Woogie, you might be able to source this or correct me, but I've heard that the total Soviet death toll, civilian and military, was over 20 million. However, we need to be clear over exactly under what circumstances we are counting deaths ie, do we count only deaths in death/concentration camps, or all deaths at the hands of the Nazis. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 03:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Total deaths in the USSR, including the annexed territories, exceeded the pre war level by 26.6 million from 1941-45, including an increase of 1.3 million in infant mortality, based on a study by the Russian Academy of Science in 1993. A 1992 Russian study gives the official total of military deaths from 1941-1945 as 8,668,400; including 6,330,000 killed in action/died of wounds and 556,000 dead from non-combat causes plus an estimated 500,000 MIA and 1,283,000 POW dead out of 4,059,000 total POW . A 1995 study by the Russian Academy of Science lists deaths in German hands of 13.7 million civilians, including 7.4 million victims of Nazi genocide and reprisals; 2.2 million deaths of persons deported to Germany for forced labor; and 4.1 million famine and disease deaths in occupied territory. There were an additional estimated 3.0 million famine deaths in the territory not under German occupation. These losses are for the entire territory of the USSR in 1941, including territories annexed in 1939-40. Civilian losses in territories annexed by USSR are also included in totals of the Baltic states(600,000), Poland(2,500,000) , Czechoslovakia(80,000), and Romania(300,000). [2],
Sources :
Andreev, EM, et al, Naselenie Sovetskogo Soiuza, 1922-1991. Moscow, Nauka, 1993. ISBN 5-02-013479-1
Rossiiskaia Akademiia nauk. Liudskie poteri SSSR v period vtoroi mirovoi voiny:sbornik statei. Sankt-Peterburg 1995 ISBN 5-86789-023-6
G. I. Krivosheev. Soviet Casualties and Combat Losses. Greenhill 1997 ISBN 1-85367-280-7
--Woogie10w (talk) 10:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC) This data is also available online at[ http://lib.ru/MEMUARY/1939-1945/KRIWOSHEEW/poteri.txt]--Woogie10w (talk) 17:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

The current page has extreme vandalism done to it, I don't have the right to edit it and I've no clue how he did it.

The Vandalism is the fact this article pretends this actually happened; the holocaust is a money making business and nothing else. Quit lying to the world.

Villadelfia (talk) 19:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Is it still there? Likely someone messed with a template. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Ah, I found it. Yes, someone messed with a template, and the damage was already reverted by the time I looked. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I still see it...Villadelfia (talk) 19:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Perhaps I'm not seeing what you're seeing. Have you reloaded the page? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
        • I just came here (see my signature for time), never loaded

the page, and see the vandalism. Some of the best vandalism Ive seen by the target and time up. (not as good as willys page moves, the ascii goatse, and the bodybuilder with an erection that made the front page) 71.37.50.189 (talk) 00:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

'Hear-Say in subarticle 3.2.3'

In the subarticle 3.2.3 'South and East Slavs' there is hear-say statement of a former Nazi official which is taken as true, or at least trying to imply something for a fact.

Quote: Hitler's high plenipotentiary in South East Europe, Hermann Neubacher, later wrote: "When leading Ustaše state that one million Orthodox Serbs (including babies, children, women and old men) were slaughtered, this in my opinion is a boasting exaggeration. End quote:

The objective data is at the end of the subsection.

Quote: The USHMM reports between 56,000 and 97,000 persons were killed at the Jasenovac concentration camp[73][74] However, Yad Vashem reports 600,000 deaths at Jasenovac.[75] End quote:

Instead of the quote from Neubacher I suggest putting a list of WW2 casualties in Yugoslavia of all nationalities not just one.

The following link contains one such list. It is an online version of the paper number 69 in the quote list. Table 5 of the paper has a column named 'victims in camps' which should indicate victims in concentration camps. http://www.hic.hr/books/manipulations/p06.htm

Disambiguation

Why does the "holocaust" link here? It is not a proper noun BY DEFINITION. There is a disambiguation page and it should fo there first. From there viewers can choose to come here. Furthermore, why is it THE holocaust? the definition of holocaust is not limited to 1940's. Perhaps Holocause (Nazis) would be more appropriate. 59.183.149.111 (talk) 12:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed many time in this page and editors are tired of rehashing it over and over. Check back through the archives. This is not WikiDictionary so the most common historic usage of the term gets priority hence Holocaust redirects here. There are other historic uses of Holocaust where it means "burnt offering unto God" and those are covered in the dablink (disambig link) found at the header of this page: "Holocaust" and "Shoah" redirect here. For other uses, see Holocaust (disambiguation) and Shoah (disambiguation).. As for THE Holocaust, can you name any other Holocaust as widely known as the WWII one? Alatari (talk) 16:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Article beautification

I went through and made sure all the headers were left justified instead of free floating and improved the flow of pictures, quotes and charts. The number of changes made in the Victims section over the last 6 months made that task a bit harder. The only change to wording was done in one chart which was a non-Jewish victim chart and was free floating. I made it just a victims chart, added Jews and the same ref from the other table listing 6.8m and moved the table to the first paragraph which describes all victims and death tolls. So it is now spatially attached to it's relevant subject material. Alatari (talk) 17:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Why cant any one edit this article ?

Why cant any one edit this article ? I do not see the edit this page button on this article about Holocaust. I have never seen this happen on any other Wikipedia page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fforest1222 (talk • contribs) 08:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• This article is under semi-protection to prevent persistent vandalism. Please see the article on Wikipedia's Protection policy for more information. Edward Lalone | (Talk)

Did any SS, Gestapo or even Hitler, Himmler regret any actions?

A normal person would agree that a conscience is embedded into any human.This would be my probabal conclusion.But in the case of German rule and World War Two is concerned I differ from my own niave conclusion! No, they did not regret it.Going through the archives, seeing laughing german soldiers pleasuring themselves or busy their boredom by torturing a jew .No one knows Hitlers motives for writing "Mein Kampf" and spreading his Arian ideal, or being the forerunner in the creation of the death camps.Though there are many forelorn and unfactual articles as to why he dispised the jews.But one must actually realise that he did not just despise only jews, he despised any culture, or type of people that did'nt conform to his sick standard.

The most ironic thing in the case of Adolf Hitler as a actual human,who eats,drinks,sleeps, etc.He spoke in one of his speeches of replenishing Germany of its clean roots, of filling his country with the super race.He wasn't even born in Germany,he was an Austrian. Thus the conclusion has already been stated.Discuss this topic.Do you agree or not? Refer to Bella. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.247.65.146 (talk) 18:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't think me an idiot.I am just writing this so that I can edit my discussion to sign it.Excuse my unuse of wikipedia etiquette. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.247.65.146 (talk) 18:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

This Wikepedia article on the holocaust is very informative. I am surprised there are still people around who deny that the holocaust ever happened, especially with the ample testimony from eyewitnesses such as eichmann and hoss. I guess it's still unbelievable that something that monstrous could have happened in a country like Germany. I have also been reading some books on the German atrocities in 1914 in Belgium and even those were pretty frightening.75.84.227.196 (talk) 19:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)edwardlovette75.84.227.196 (talk) 19:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Why are Soviet POWs under Slavs section ? Soviet soldiers were also people like Uzbeks, Kazakhs, Azeris who were murdered as well.

Why are Soviet POWs under Slavs section ? Soviet soldiers s were also people like Uzbeks, Kazakhs, Azeris who were murdered as well. And they definetely don't classify as Slavs.--Molobo (talk) 01:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• That's a good point. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
• I propose to remove it then from Slavs section, if nobody disagrees.--Molobo (talk) 11:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• Nazi propaganda depicted Soviet Army as Untermensch hoards with Asiatic features. The reality was quite different, only about 5% of Soviet combat forces were from the Turkish and Asian ethnic groups. These groups were considered unreliable and were used mostly in rear area units. The Germans did recruit a Turkestan legion during the war. Nazi propaganda depicted these Asiatic volunteers with their faces turned to the side! [3]--Woogie10w (talk) 11:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Source for 5 % ? Anyway it would still mean that placing Soviet PoWs among Slavs is wrong.--Molobo (talk) 11:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• Source for 5% figure-Rossiiskaia Akademiia nauk. Liudskie poteri SSSR v period vtoroi mirovoi voiny:sbornik statei. Sankt-Peterburg 1995 ISBN 5-86789-023-6--Woogie10w (talk) 11:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Please take no offence, but are there any other estimates ? For example Soviet ones or Western we could compare with Russian ones ? I am asking because Russia underwent nationalism period after collapse of SU and sometimes the role of Russians and Russian history is portayed in dubious way by Russian sources. Anyway it still means placing Soviet POWs in Slavs category is wrong-they were killed primarily because they were Soviets not because they were Slavs(I do not deny that Slavs were to be exterminated according to German state, and such operations existed) --Molobo (talk) 12:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• On a practical level a knowledge of Russian language was necessary for troops in combat units. In combat orders must be communicated and understood without delay. For example in 1940-41 the Soviets drafted men from the annexed territories; Poles and Baltic conscripts were usually placed in construction(tyl) formations. --Woogie10w (talk) 13:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

"Poles and Baltic conscripts were usually placed in construction(tyl) formations"

Balts are not a Slavic people's group. Lithuanians and Latvians belong to Balts people's group and Estonians are Finno-Ugric.--Molobo (talk) 13:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• Nazi racist propaganda that depicted the Soviet Army as Asiatic was not at all accurate. About 90% of Soviet combat troops and POW were Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian , 5% Turkic and Asiatic and the remaining 5% from various ethnic groups such as Georgians, Armenians ,other minorities from the Caucasus and Baltic regions. The Soviets needed men who could understand orders given in the Russian language. Conscripts who were not proficient in Russian were placed in the rear (Tyl) units for construction and supply. I was told by an ex German POW that guards in his camp were Volga Germans, among the prisoners at the camp were Soviet soldiers convicted for offenses.--Woogie10w (talk) 14:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
• I propose to remove it then from Slavs section, if nobody disagrees. Go ahead, be bold and move it, I have no problem with that. The only bone I have to pick with this article is the fact that the Russians count only 1.3 million dead POW, not 3 million. The balance of 1.7 milion were considered civilians because they were conscripted reservists not listed on the strength of military units. Western historians really need to become familiar with contemporary Russian soruces.--Woogie10w (talk) 15:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

why were my edits to this page removed?

Resolved

 – This editor has been blocked indefinitely. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 23:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
and who removed them? i'm getting a little pissed here. Bannedtruth (talk) 15:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC) Because they were pure trolling and denialism. Paul B (talk) 15:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC) says who? you? Bannedtruth (talk) 15:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC) We don't argue with denialists because there is no point. They are way way beyond any form of mainstream scholarship on the subject. And that's the last I'll say on the matter unless you want to raise any legitimate issues about the article. Paul B (talk) 15:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC) so paul, there is no free discussion allowed on this issue? i cant disagree with certain aspects of what is supposed to be an historical event? is this why they throw people in jail in germany and ban them from speaking out on the flaws of the holocaust story? it amazes me that people who claim the Nazi's were so evil and wrong are yet so quick to adopt their tactics Bannedtruth (talk) 15:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC) and i dont argue with small-minded bigots. Bannedtruth (talk) 15:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC) This page is for discussing improvements to the article, not soapboxing. Continued disruption and personal attacks will result in you being blocked from editing. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 17:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC) Banned truth, what are your arguments? Who are your sources? --Woogie10w (talk) 18:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC) does it matter? i was called a "denialist" and did anyone make an issue of that? Bannedtruth (talk) 21:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC) My. What a well-fed troll. Horwendil (talk) 21:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC) Actually, Bannedtruth, it does matter, per WP:RS, WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:WEIGHT. Please do not try to insert your edits again. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 21:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC) you see, there you go. i get called a "troll" and does anyone care? can anyone say double standard Bannedtruth (talk) 21:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC) I'd like everyone to be civil and avoid personal attacks. This page is for discussing improvements to the article; let's use it for that. Bannedtruth, if you don't have anything constructive to suggest, please do not post here again. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 22:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC) Let the guy come on, we can refute his arguments. Holocaust denial is in the same ballpark as the Lost Continent of Atlantis and the face on Mars. No personal attacks, just facts and sources. Let's go, Bannedtruth, throw the first punch.--Woogie10w (talk) 00:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC) We're in agreement here. Facts and sources are exactly what I had in mind when I asked for constructive suggestions. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 00:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC) well, i think there should be open discussion on this issue, just like there is on all others. if you doubt the official holocaust story you are marginalized and called a "denier" or a "troll". you want facts? how about the fact that in 1942 British Intel cracked the secret getman code and could intercept the communications from Auschwitz to Berlin and nowhere is there any mention of one gassing let alone millions. Bannedtruth (talk) 08:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Evidence presented at the Frankfurt Auschwitz Trials proved the mass murder using of gas chambers by the Nazis. Source: Naumann, Bernd Auschwitz; a report on the proceedings against Robert Karl Ludwig Mulka and others before the court at Frankfurt. Translated by Jean Steinberg. With an introd. by Hannah Arendt.New York, Praeger [1966] The film Verdict on Auschwitz by ROLF BICKEL provides an overview of the Frankfurt trials.--Woogie10w (talk) 11:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC) This is not the place for this discussion. Wikipedia talk pages are for discussing changes and improvements to their respective articles, not for debates about the existence of the article's subjects. If Bannedtruth has some material he wishes to add to the article, all he needs to is provide reliable sources to that effect. There are better places to have this discussion. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Jpgordon is right. Besides, there is overwhelming evidence that the British government knew of the mass murders, but kept silent. The British population of the 40's was too anti-Semetical to either care about the Holocaust or support the government in taking action. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 17:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC) The UK was not silent! In Dec 1942 the UK condemed the mass murder of the Jews. Read this BBC report,[4]--Woogie10w (talk) 22:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia is supposed to provide, on talk pages, the opportunity to discuss evidence and help people come to a consensus on topics with a scientific eye for detail. Bannedtruth has presented no evidence, so this shouldn't be turned into an online forum, there's places for Holocaust discussion all over the internet that would suit him better. However, if someone actually comes here with real evidence, like sources, citations, material, that can shed doubt on the Holocaust, it should be discussed, but that's not what Bannedtruth is doing in complaining and refusing to discuss something he wanted to put into a Wikipedia article as 'fact'. LeobenConoy (talk) 23:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC) I assumed good faith on the part of Bannedtruth and asked him to engage in rational dissussion. However, his edit history today indicates that he is disruptive person who wastes the time of serious editors. Jpgordon was right to delete his BS.--Woogie10w (talk) 23:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC) You say, This is not the place for this discussion. If anyone has any reasonable points to make, please post them with sources. I will answer them, and expect them not to be deleted. I have two thoughts on this discussion. The first being that the editors on this page really need to read a good solid history of the topic before they start editing and the second being that we have a moral responsibility to correct the young folks that have been led astray by the Holocaust deniers.--Woogie10w (talk) 22:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Not here. This page is solely to discuss the Wikipedia article The Holocaust; it is not to discuss the Holocaust. If you or anyone persists in inappropriate conversation, it will be deleted. Feel free to set up your own website to argue with Holocaust deniers and similar idiots; it doesn't belong here. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC) inappropriate conversation, you are not the sole judge of what is posted here. You do not own the article. Who are you to decide what is posted on the discussion page. Time out, you are dealing with a guy who has been on Wikipedia for three years, I have a solid track record of dealing with facts backed up by sources.--Woogie10w (talk) 22:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC) In that case, I'm surprised you're unfamiliar with Wikipedia's talk page guidelines. In particular, Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Be honest, a great deal of the material on Wikipedia talk pages is not always directly related to the article per se. Lets us take two examples, person A, a good guy, who is a registered user makes a post to the talk page that quotes a web site claiming the gas chambers were not used for mass murder. Let us also assume that the user is a 12 year old who is starting out in life. We have a moral responsibility to point out the facts this user and others, not delete the post. The bad guy, person B who is not a regular user makes a violent anti-semetic remark, we need to delete this material.--Woogie10w (talk) 23:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Bad wording on my part, Woogie. By "kept silent" I meant more along the lines of action- but then again what could they do. I agree that talk pages should be used to only discuss changes to the article, but I think that this discussion actually might fit in discussing changes to the article, ie the change to include denialist POV's. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 23:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia is not a forum. Not all talk pages are ideal, but with a subject as potentially incendiary as the Holocaust extended debate is not necessary or wanted. We're not going to change a "revisionists" view, and there are better venues than this to engage them in extended discussions. AniMate 23:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC) i am sorry that i caused such a stirr with some questions. i have no agenda, no axe to grind. i am just trying to find the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bannedtruth (talk • contribs) 12:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC) If you're trying to find the truth, stating unverified, unsourced, erroneous claims as factual is a pretty poor way of looking for the truth. LeobenConoy (talk) 23:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC) there is a multi-part interview with David Irving in which he talks about the lack of pysical evidence of the holocaust like the gas chambers that didnt exist and also the intercepts of transmissions of british intel that make no mention of the holocaust gassings. that was my source. david irving is a well known historian with over 30 books to his credit. is that a good source? Bannedtruth (talk) 11:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC) In case anyone doesn't know David Irving: Irving's reputation as a historian was widely discredited after he brought an unsuccessful libel case against American historian Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin Books in 1998. During the trial, an English court found that Irving was an "active Holocaust denier," as well as an antisemite and racist, and that he "associates with right-wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism." The judge also ruled that Irving had "for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence." SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 13:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC) He knows this. He's a troll. Ignore him. Paul B (talk) 13:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC) first of all Paul, nobody was asking you. and i wish you could call me that to my face. in the interview i have referred to david irving states that he is not an antisemite, that his lawyer was a jew, and his attorney was also a jew. why would an antisemite have jewish people in his employ? i think a man with 30 books to his credit, who discredited the Hitler Diaries as the fraud that they were deserves a little more respect than this. i dont think unless i espouse the mainstream holocaust views that i will be allowed the respect of making contributions to Wikipedia. everything is open to discussion and debate.....but this one historical event that cannot survive as history at Wikipedia without name calling like "troll" and "crank" and cannot exist as historical fact in europe without the threats of fines, jail and deportations. Bannedtruth (talk) 19:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC) You're correct in that as long as you espouse falsehood (i.e., Holocaust denial), you'll be given little or no credence on Wikipedia. Perhaps you might find an area you can make useful contributions in; Holocaust studies are clearly not your forte. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC) The issues raised by Bannedtruth have been addressed by the Nizkor Project which engages in open debate with Holocaust deniers. I strongly recommend that this user check the Nizkor website [5] and review their material on the Holocaust. At the Frankfurt Auschwitz Trials the use of gas chambers for mass murder was proven beyond any shadow of a doubt. After reviewing hundreds of hours of testimony the judges concluded that the gas chambers were in fact a horrible reality that cannot be denied. Bannedtruth, if you go to Germany today and deny the Holocaust you will find yourself in front of a judge to answer charges. Bannedtruth be nice and stop wasting our valuable time. --Woogie10w (talk) 22:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC) I don't think I've ever heard it expressed so eloquently and bluntly at the same time. :) There is a difference between a minorithy view and simple incorrectness. I quite frankly don't see the point of Holocaust denial. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 22:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Changes

To improve this article I recommend the following.
ONE- The historical background of European Antisemitism needs to be addressed. The article as it stands now implies that the Holocaust occured with the advent of the Nazis, without a discussion of the deep rooted European Antisemitism. I reccommend the edirors read Raul Hilberg’s The Destruction of the European Jews which has a good overview of the Christian persecutions of the Jews over the centuries. Lucy Dawidowicz In her book The War Against the Jews draws a line of "anti-Semitic descent" from Martin Luther to Hitler, writing that both men were obsessed by the "demonologized universe" inhabited by Jews. This article is a whitewash of the problem of European Antisemitism and promotes historical revisionism
TWO- The article is highly misleading when it equates the fate of the other groups persecuted by the Nazis with the Jews. The Slavs were indeed victims but their persecution cannot by any stretch of the imagination be compared the Jews. Also, anti-Semitism in Poland during the war needs be addressed in the article, I recommend that the editors read Unequal Victims by Israel Gutman for a discussion of this sensitive issue. Why does this article ignore the ugly issue of anti-Semitism in Poland during the war that was documented by Israel Gutman in Unequal Victims? I contend that the editors haved chosen to ignore this historical reality in order to avoid the noisy denials of anti-Semites who wish to promote historical revisionism--Woogie10w (talk) 23:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your first point. The Nazis were only able to do what they did by scapegoating the Jews, and they were only able to scapegoat the Jews because of rampant anti-Semitism in Europe. To your second point, the article needs to distinguish between the fates of the tow groups without diminish the fate of non-Jews. I propose a wording along the lines of, "While Jews were the main group targeted by the Nazis, and indeed the group identified most with the Holocaust, other groups such as Slavs, homosexuals, the disabled, and religious and political dissidents were also killed in the millions." Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 23:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I contend that, the other groups were indeed victims but their persecution cannot by any stretch of the imagination be compared the Jews. This needs to be made clear. Israel Gutman is my source--Woogie10w (talk) 23:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's not go engaging in historical revisionism here. I agree with you that European antisemitism was widespread at the time (including Poland), but Auschwitz, Birkenau and other concentration camps located in Poland were run by occupying Nazi forces. Add to that the fact that the Polish are the greatest number of people who were acknowledged as Righteous Among the Nations, i.e. who put their own lives at risk to save Jewish people - 6,066 people, and I think your suggestion veers toward undue weight (do you want to only mention Polish collaborators and not Polish rescuers? Let's not make broad summaries about nationalities as this is inaccurate and offensive). Also, why doesn't the proposed sentence of other groups affected mention the Gypsies? They were also heavily targeted for genocide. I don't see why we should give any greater weight to the opinion of Mr. Gutman just because he wrote a book. Brisvegas 11:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

You write , I don't see why we should give any greater weight to the opinion of Mr. Gutman just because he wrote a book. My reply is that Israel Gutman is a well known and respected scholar of the Holocaust. He was chairman of the Scientific Council of Yad Vashem in Jerusalem. --Woogie10w (talk) 12:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not arguing against expansion of discussion of pre-Holocaust European anti-Semitism. Why can't we include other groups without diminishing the importance and impact of Jewish suffering. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and there is not a limited amount of space. We can give other groups their due weight without taking away from the due weight of the Jews. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 13:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Get the book Unequal Victims by Israel Gutman, please read it. Then you will understand why the genocide of the European Jews by Nazis cannot cannot by any stretch of the imagination be compared to the other groups persecuted by the Nazis.--Woogie10w (talk) 14:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Pictures at the "Liberation" section

Are the images of this section of the article hidden on purpose or is it a mistake? The pictures are covered by a text box and I'm not good at fixing and formatting pictures on WP... Maybe someone could fix this? Pel thal (talk) 13:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

On my computer, it looks fine. No text overlapping the images. I am using a Windows XP machine with Mozilla Firefox browser set to a viewing size of 1024x768. What are you using? Binksternet (talk) 13:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)